User login
High antipsychotic switch rates suggest ‘suboptimal’ prescribing for first-episode psychosis
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SIRS 2022
More antibodies with longer intervals between COVID vaccine doses
An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.
This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.
Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.
The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.
In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”
The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).
Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
Natural infection increased antibody levels
Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”
This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.”
“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”
However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.
“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”
SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.
In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).
Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.
Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.
The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease.
In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.
The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.
In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.
Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.
Timing of fourth dose
By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.
This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.
In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”
She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.
Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.
This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.
Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.
The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.
In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”
The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).
Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
Natural infection increased antibody levels
Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”
This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.”
“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”
However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.
“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”
SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.
In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).
Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.
Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.
The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease.
In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.
The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.
In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.
Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.
Timing of fourth dose
By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.
This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.
In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”
She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.
Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.
This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.
Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.
The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.
In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”
The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).
Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
Natural infection increased antibody levels
Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”
This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.”
“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”
However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.
“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”
SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.
In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).
Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.
Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.
The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease.
In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.
The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.
In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.
Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.
Timing of fourth dose
By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.
This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.
In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”
She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.
Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term efficacy, safety data for ixekizumab in pediatric psoriasis reported
with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.
In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.
Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.
In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.
Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.
No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.
“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.
One of the biggest concerns with using IL-17 inhibitors such as ixekizumab to manage psoriasis is the development of IBD, said Dr. Paller. She noted that four cases of IBD were reported before the extension phase of the trial but that no new IBD cases were reported after week 48.
“We would not start this as a treatment of choice in someone with Crohn’s disease, or perhaps we would think twice about using it in someone with a strong family history [of Crohn’s disease],” said Dr. Paller, who is also the director of the Skin Biology and Diseases Resource-Based Center at Northwestern. “Otherwise, it does not make me concerned about its use.”
Commenting on the study, Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the trial’s results provide additional evidence regarding the optimal management of pediatric psoriasis.
“The landscape has shifted toward involving more pediatric patients in clinical trials, thereby providing dermatologists with data to select safe and effective therapies to manage children with psoriasis,” Dr. Cordoro said in an interview. “We have data showing that children with psoriasis have been undertreated, likely because of concerns about safety. The more evidence available from trials such as this, the more likely children are to receive necessary treatment.”
The efficacy data from the study on difficult-to-treat areas of psoriasis, in addition to improvements in BSA and PASI measures, are significant for clinicians deciding on a therapy for patients with psoriasis concentrated in specific body sites. “It was very valuable that the efficacy data was provided by site, such as scalp, palmoplantar, nails, and genital psoriasis, as these are low-BSA but high-impact areas for patients,” said Dr. Cordoro.
The trial data on Crohn’s disease buttress her decision to continue to refrain from initiating ixekizumab in a child with IBD or who is at high risk for IBD. “I was happy to see that there was not a signal for Candida infection,” she added.
Interestingly, in the substudy in the European population, in which there was a double-blind, randomized withdrawal period, fewer patients who were reassigned to receive ixekizumab experienced relapse, compared with those who were reassigned to receive placebo. A total of 90.9% of patients who received placebo experienced relapse, compared with 17.6% of patients treated with ixekizumab. The median time to relapse in the placebo group was 149 days.
“There are data in the adult population that suggest intermittent treatment does allow for recapture of clinical response,” said Dr. Cordoro. “While it is not a large enough dataset to know definitively, this substudy of patients suggests the possibility of intermittent treatment and the ability to regain control [of psoriasis] after a period off drug.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Paller is an investigator and consultant for Eli Lilly. Several other authors have received grants, personal fees, and/or were a consultant to Eli Lilly, and two authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Cordoro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.
In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.
Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.
In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.
Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.
No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.
“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.
One of the biggest concerns with using IL-17 inhibitors such as ixekizumab to manage psoriasis is the development of IBD, said Dr. Paller. She noted that four cases of IBD were reported before the extension phase of the trial but that no new IBD cases were reported after week 48.
“We would not start this as a treatment of choice in someone with Crohn’s disease, or perhaps we would think twice about using it in someone with a strong family history [of Crohn’s disease],” said Dr. Paller, who is also the director of the Skin Biology and Diseases Resource-Based Center at Northwestern. “Otherwise, it does not make me concerned about its use.”
Commenting on the study, Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the trial’s results provide additional evidence regarding the optimal management of pediatric psoriasis.
“The landscape has shifted toward involving more pediatric patients in clinical trials, thereby providing dermatologists with data to select safe and effective therapies to manage children with psoriasis,” Dr. Cordoro said in an interview. “We have data showing that children with psoriasis have been undertreated, likely because of concerns about safety. The more evidence available from trials such as this, the more likely children are to receive necessary treatment.”
The efficacy data from the study on difficult-to-treat areas of psoriasis, in addition to improvements in BSA and PASI measures, are significant for clinicians deciding on a therapy for patients with psoriasis concentrated in specific body sites. “It was very valuable that the efficacy data was provided by site, such as scalp, palmoplantar, nails, and genital psoriasis, as these are low-BSA but high-impact areas for patients,” said Dr. Cordoro.
The trial data on Crohn’s disease buttress her decision to continue to refrain from initiating ixekizumab in a child with IBD or who is at high risk for IBD. “I was happy to see that there was not a signal for Candida infection,” she added.
Interestingly, in the substudy in the European population, in which there was a double-blind, randomized withdrawal period, fewer patients who were reassigned to receive ixekizumab experienced relapse, compared with those who were reassigned to receive placebo. A total of 90.9% of patients who received placebo experienced relapse, compared with 17.6% of patients treated with ixekizumab. The median time to relapse in the placebo group was 149 days.
“There are data in the adult population that suggest intermittent treatment does allow for recapture of clinical response,” said Dr. Cordoro. “While it is not a large enough dataset to know definitively, this substudy of patients suggests the possibility of intermittent treatment and the ability to regain control [of psoriasis] after a period off drug.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Paller is an investigator and consultant for Eli Lilly. Several other authors have received grants, personal fees, and/or were a consultant to Eli Lilly, and two authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Cordoro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.
In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.
Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.
In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.
Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.
No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.
“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.
One of the biggest concerns with using IL-17 inhibitors such as ixekizumab to manage psoriasis is the development of IBD, said Dr. Paller. She noted that four cases of IBD were reported before the extension phase of the trial but that no new IBD cases were reported after week 48.
“We would not start this as a treatment of choice in someone with Crohn’s disease, or perhaps we would think twice about using it in someone with a strong family history [of Crohn’s disease],” said Dr. Paller, who is also the director of the Skin Biology and Diseases Resource-Based Center at Northwestern. “Otherwise, it does not make me concerned about its use.”
Commenting on the study, Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the trial’s results provide additional evidence regarding the optimal management of pediatric psoriasis.
“The landscape has shifted toward involving more pediatric patients in clinical trials, thereby providing dermatologists with data to select safe and effective therapies to manage children with psoriasis,” Dr. Cordoro said in an interview. “We have data showing that children with psoriasis have been undertreated, likely because of concerns about safety. The more evidence available from trials such as this, the more likely children are to receive necessary treatment.”
The efficacy data from the study on difficult-to-treat areas of psoriasis, in addition to improvements in BSA and PASI measures, are significant for clinicians deciding on a therapy for patients with psoriasis concentrated in specific body sites. “It was very valuable that the efficacy data was provided by site, such as scalp, palmoplantar, nails, and genital psoriasis, as these are low-BSA but high-impact areas for patients,” said Dr. Cordoro.
The trial data on Crohn’s disease buttress her decision to continue to refrain from initiating ixekizumab in a child with IBD or who is at high risk for IBD. “I was happy to see that there was not a signal for Candida infection,” she added.
Interestingly, in the substudy in the European population, in which there was a double-blind, randomized withdrawal period, fewer patients who were reassigned to receive ixekizumab experienced relapse, compared with those who were reassigned to receive placebo. A total of 90.9% of patients who received placebo experienced relapse, compared with 17.6% of patients treated with ixekizumab. The median time to relapse in the placebo group was 149 days.
“There are data in the adult population that suggest intermittent treatment does allow for recapture of clinical response,” said Dr. Cordoro. “While it is not a large enough dataset to know definitively, this substudy of patients suggests the possibility of intermittent treatment and the ability to regain control [of psoriasis] after a period off drug.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Paller is an investigator and consultant for Eli Lilly. Several other authors have received grants, personal fees, and/or were a consultant to Eli Lilly, and two authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Cordoro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Indications and techniques for multifetal pregnancy reduction
Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.
In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.1
Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.
Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.
We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.
Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.2 While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing
Our most recent review3 of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).
Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.
An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.
A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.4
Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.5 Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins
Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.
MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.
In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).5 Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)
Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.
Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.
Counseling in twin pregnancies
We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.
Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.
Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.
Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.
When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
References
1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.
2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.
3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.
4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.
5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.
Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.
In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.1
Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.
Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.
We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.
Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.2 While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing
Our most recent review3 of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).
Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.
An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.
A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.4
Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.5 Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins
Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.
MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.
In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).5 Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)
Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.
Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.
Counseling in twin pregnancies
We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.
Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.
Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.
Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.
When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
References
1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.
2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.
3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.
4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.
5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.
Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.
In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.1
Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.
Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.
We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.
Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.2 While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing
Our most recent review3 of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).
Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.
An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.
A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.4
Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.5 Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins
Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.
MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.
In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).5 Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)
Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.
Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.
Counseling in twin pregnancies
We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.
Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.
Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.
Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.
When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
References
1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.
2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.
3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.
4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.
5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.
Managing maternal mortality with multifetal pregnancy reduction
For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.
The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),1 the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.
Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations2 – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.3
While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.
To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255
2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.
3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.
For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.
The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),1 the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.
Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations2 – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.3
While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.
To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255
2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.
3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.
For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.
The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),1 the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.
Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations2 – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.3
While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.
To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255
2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.
3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.
New combination med for severe mental illness tied to less weight gain
, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says the weight difference between the two drugs is of “questionable clinical benefit.”
Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, as a maintenance monotherapy or as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes.
In the ENLIGHTEN-Early trial, researchers examined weight-gain profiles of more than 400 patients with early schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder.
Results showed those given combination treatment gained just over half the amount of weight as those given monotherapy. They were also 36% less likely to gain at least 10% of their body weight during the 12-week treatment period.
They indicate that the weight-mitigating effects shown with olanzapine plus samidorphan are “consistent, regardless of the stage of illness,” Dr. Kahn added.
He presented the findings at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Potential benefit
“Early intervention with antipsychotic treatment is critical in shaping the course of treatment and the disease trajectory,” coinvestigator Christine Graham, PhD, with Alkermes, which manufactures the drug, told this news organization.
Olanzapine is a “highly effective antipsychotic, but it’s really avoided a lot in this population,” Dr. Graham said. Therefore, patients “could really stand to benefit” from a combination that delivers the same amount of antipsychotic effect, but “reduces the propensity” for clinically significant weight gain, she added.
Dr. Kahn noted in his meeting presentation that antipsychotics are the “cornerstone” of the treatment of serious mental illness, but that “many are associated with concerning weight gain and cardiometabolic effects.”
While olanzapine is an effective medication, it has “one of the highest weight gain” profiles of the available antipsychotics and patients early on in their illness are “especially vulnerable,” Dr. Kahn said.
Previous studies have shown the combination of olanzapine plus samidorphan is similarly effective as olanzapine, but is associated with less weight gain.
To determine its impact in recent-onset illness, the current researchers screened patients with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder. The patients were aged 16-39 years and had an initial onset of active phase symptoms less than 4 years previously. They had less than 24 weeks’ cumulative lifetime exposure to antipsychotics.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus samidorphan or olanzapine alone for 12 weeks, and then followed up for safety assessment for a further 4 weeks.
A total of 426 patients were recruited and 76.5% completed the study. The mean age was 25.8 years, 66.2% were men, 66.4% were White, and 28.2% were Black.
The mean body mass index at baseline was 23.69 kg/m2. The most common diagnosis among the participants was schizophrenia (62.9%) followed by bipolar I disorder (21.6%).
Less weight gain
Results of the 12-week study showed a significant difference in percent change in body weight from baseline between the two treatment groups, with a gain of 4.91% for the olanzapine plus samidorphan group vs. 6.77% for the olanzapine-alone group (between-group difference, 1.87%; P = .012).
Dr. Kahn noted this equates to an average weight gain of 2.8 kg (6.2 pounds) with olanzapine plus samidorphan and a gain of about 5 kg (11pounds) with olanzapine.
“It’s not a huge difference, but it’s certainly a significant one,” he said. “I also think it’s clinically important and significant.”
The reduction in weight gain compared with olanzapine was even maintained in patients assigned to olanzapine plus samidorphan who dropped out and did not complete the study, Dr. Kahn reported. “No one really had a weight gain,” he said.
In contrast, patients in the olanzapine groups who dropped out of the study had weight gain larger than their counterparts who stayed in it.
Further analysis showed the proportion of patients who gained 10% or more of their body weight by week 12 was 21.9% for those receiving olanzapine plus samidorphan vs. 30.4% for those receiving just olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.64; P = .075).
As expected, the improvement in Clinical Global Impression–Severity scale scores was almost identical between the olanzapine + samidorphan and olanzapine-only groups.
For safety, Dr. Kahn said the adverse event rates were “very, very similar” between the two treatment arms, which was a pattern that was repeated for serious AEs. This led him to note that “nothing out of the ordinary” was observed.
Clinical impact 'questionable'
Commenting on the study, Laura LaChance, MD, a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said the actual amount of weight loss shown in the study “is of questionable clinical significance.”
On the other hand, Dr. LaChance said she has achieved “better results with metformin, which has a great safety profile and is cheap and widely available.
“Cost is always a concern in patients with psychotic disorders,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Alkermes. Dr. Kahn reported having relationships with Alkermes, Angelini, Janssen, Sunovion, Otsuka, Merck, Minerva Neuroscience, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Graham is an employee of Alkermes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says the weight difference between the two drugs is of “questionable clinical benefit.”
Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, as a maintenance monotherapy or as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes.
In the ENLIGHTEN-Early trial, researchers examined weight-gain profiles of more than 400 patients with early schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder.
Results showed those given combination treatment gained just over half the amount of weight as those given monotherapy. They were also 36% less likely to gain at least 10% of their body weight during the 12-week treatment period.
They indicate that the weight-mitigating effects shown with olanzapine plus samidorphan are “consistent, regardless of the stage of illness,” Dr. Kahn added.
He presented the findings at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Potential benefit
“Early intervention with antipsychotic treatment is critical in shaping the course of treatment and the disease trajectory,” coinvestigator Christine Graham, PhD, with Alkermes, which manufactures the drug, told this news organization.
Olanzapine is a “highly effective antipsychotic, but it’s really avoided a lot in this population,” Dr. Graham said. Therefore, patients “could really stand to benefit” from a combination that delivers the same amount of antipsychotic effect, but “reduces the propensity” for clinically significant weight gain, she added.
Dr. Kahn noted in his meeting presentation that antipsychotics are the “cornerstone” of the treatment of serious mental illness, but that “many are associated with concerning weight gain and cardiometabolic effects.”
While olanzapine is an effective medication, it has “one of the highest weight gain” profiles of the available antipsychotics and patients early on in their illness are “especially vulnerable,” Dr. Kahn said.
Previous studies have shown the combination of olanzapine plus samidorphan is similarly effective as olanzapine, but is associated with less weight gain.
To determine its impact in recent-onset illness, the current researchers screened patients with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder. The patients were aged 16-39 years and had an initial onset of active phase symptoms less than 4 years previously. They had less than 24 weeks’ cumulative lifetime exposure to antipsychotics.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus samidorphan or olanzapine alone for 12 weeks, and then followed up for safety assessment for a further 4 weeks.
A total of 426 patients were recruited and 76.5% completed the study. The mean age was 25.8 years, 66.2% were men, 66.4% were White, and 28.2% were Black.
The mean body mass index at baseline was 23.69 kg/m2. The most common diagnosis among the participants was schizophrenia (62.9%) followed by bipolar I disorder (21.6%).
Less weight gain
Results of the 12-week study showed a significant difference in percent change in body weight from baseline between the two treatment groups, with a gain of 4.91% for the olanzapine plus samidorphan group vs. 6.77% for the olanzapine-alone group (between-group difference, 1.87%; P = .012).
Dr. Kahn noted this equates to an average weight gain of 2.8 kg (6.2 pounds) with olanzapine plus samidorphan and a gain of about 5 kg (11pounds) with olanzapine.
“It’s not a huge difference, but it’s certainly a significant one,” he said. “I also think it’s clinically important and significant.”
The reduction in weight gain compared with olanzapine was even maintained in patients assigned to olanzapine plus samidorphan who dropped out and did not complete the study, Dr. Kahn reported. “No one really had a weight gain,” he said.
In contrast, patients in the olanzapine groups who dropped out of the study had weight gain larger than their counterparts who stayed in it.
Further analysis showed the proportion of patients who gained 10% or more of their body weight by week 12 was 21.9% for those receiving olanzapine plus samidorphan vs. 30.4% for those receiving just olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.64; P = .075).
As expected, the improvement in Clinical Global Impression–Severity scale scores was almost identical between the olanzapine + samidorphan and olanzapine-only groups.
For safety, Dr. Kahn said the adverse event rates were “very, very similar” between the two treatment arms, which was a pattern that was repeated for serious AEs. This led him to note that “nothing out of the ordinary” was observed.
Clinical impact 'questionable'
Commenting on the study, Laura LaChance, MD, a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said the actual amount of weight loss shown in the study “is of questionable clinical significance.”
On the other hand, Dr. LaChance said she has achieved “better results with metformin, which has a great safety profile and is cheap and widely available.
“Cost is always a concern in patients with psychotic disorders,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Alkermes. Dr. Kahn reported having relationships with Alkermes, Angelini, Janssen, Sunovion, Otsuka, Merck, Minerva Neuroscience, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Graham is an employee of Alkermes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says the weight difference between the two drugs is of “questionable clinical benefit.”
Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, as a maintenance monotherapy or as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes.
In the ENLIGHTEN-Early trial, researchers examined weight-gain profiles of more than 400 patients with early schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder.
Results showed those given combination treatment gained just over half the amount of weight as those given monotherapy. They were also 36% less likely to gain at least 10% of their body weight during the 12-week treatment period.
They indicate that the weight-mitigating effects shown with olanzapine plus samidorphan are “consistent, regardless of the stage of illness,” Dr. Kahn added.
He presented the findings at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Potential benefit
“Early intervention with antipsychotic treatment is critical in shaping the course of treatment and the disease trajectory,” coinvestigator Christine Graham, PhD, with Alkermes, which manufactures the drug, told this news organization.
Olanzapine is a “highly effective antipsychotic, but it’s really avoided a lot in this population,” Dr. Graham said. Therefore, patients “could really stand to benefit” from a combination that delivers the same amount of antipsychotic effect, but “reduces the propensity” for clinically significant weight gain, she added.
Dr. Kahn noted in his meeting presentation that antipsychotics are the “cornerstone” of the treatment of serious mental illness, but that “many are associated with concerning weight gain and cardiometabolic effects.”
While olanzapine is an effective medication, it has “one of the highest weight gain” profiles of the available antipsychotics and patients early on in their illness are “especially vulnerable,” Dr. Kahn said.
Previous studies have shown the combination of olanzapine plus samidorphan is similarly effective as olanzapine, but is associated with less weight gain.
To determine its impact in recent-onset illness, the current researchers screened patients with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder. The patients were aged 16-39 years and had an initial onset of active phase symptoms less than 4 years previously. They had less than 24 weeks’ cumulative lifetime exposure to antipsychotics.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus samidorphan or olanzapine alone for 12 weeks, and then followed up for safety assessment for a further 4 weeks.
A total of 426 patients were recruited and 76.5% completed the study. The mean age was 25.8 years, 66.2% were men, 66.4% were White, and 28.2% were Black.
The mean body mass index at baseline was 23.69 kg/m2. The most common diagnosis among the participants was schizophrenia (62.9%) followed by bipolar I disorder (21.6%).
Less weight gain
Results of the 12-week study showed a significant difference in percent change in body weight from baseline between the two treatment groups, with a gain of 4.91% for the olanzapine plus samidorphan group vs. 6.77% for the olanzapine-alone group (between-group difference, 1.87%; P = .012).
Dr. Kahn noted this equates to an average weight gain of 2.8 kg (6.2 pounds) with olanzapine plus samidorphan and a gain of about 5 kg (11pounds) with olanzapine.
“It’s not a huge difference, but it’s certainly a significant one,” he said. “I also think it’s clinically important and significant.”
The reduction in weight gain compared with olanzapine was even maintained in patients assigned to olanzapine plus samidorphan who dropped out and did not complete the study, Dr. Kahn reported. “No one really had a weight gain,” he said.
In contrast, patients in the olanzapine groups who dropped out of the study had weight gain larger than their counterparts who stayed in it.
Further analysis showed the proportion of patients who gained 10% or more of their body weight by week 12 was 21.9% for those receiving olanzapine plus samidorphan vs. 30.4% for those receiving just olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.64; P = .075).
As expected, the improvement in Clinical Global Impression–Severity scale scores was almost identical between the olanzapine + samidorphan and olanzapine-only groups.
For safety, Dr. Kahn said the adverse event rates were “very, very similar” between the two treatment arms, which was a pattern that was repeated for serious AEs. This led him to note that “nothing out of the ordinary” was observed.
Clinical impact 'questionable'
Commenting on the study, Laura LaChance, MD, a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said the actual amount of weight loss shown in the study “is of questionable clinical significance.”
On the other hand, Dr. LaChance said she has achieved “better results with metformin, which has a great safety profile and is cheap and widely available.
“Cost is always a concern in patients with psychotic disorders,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Alkermes. Dr. Kahn reported having relationships with Alkermes, Angelini, Janssen, Sunovion, Otsuka, Merck, Minerva Neuroscience, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Graham is an employee of Alkermes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SIRS 2022
How effective are sterilization procedures? Study raises questions
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Second-trimester blood test predicts preterm birth
A new blood test performed in the second trimester could help identify pregnancies at risk of early and very early spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB), based on a prospective cohort trial.
The cell-free RNA (cfRNA) profiling tool could guide patient and provider decision-making, while the underlying research illuminates biological pathways that may facilitate novel interventions, reported lead author Joan Camunas-Soler, PhD, of Mirvie, South San Francisco, and colleagues.
“Given the complex etiology of this heterogeneous syndrome, it would be advantageous to develop predictive tests that provide insight on the specific pathophysiology leading to preterm birth for each particular pregnancy,” Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Such an approach could inform the development of preventive treatments and targeted therapeutics that are currently lacking/difficult to implement due to the heterogeneous etiology of sPTB.”
Currently, the best predictor of sPTB is previous sPTB, according to the investigators. Although a combination approach that incorporates cervical length and fetal fibronectin in cervicovaginal fluid is “of use,” they noted, “this is not standard of care in the U.S.A. nor recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.” Existing molecular tests lack clinical data and may be inaccurate across diverse patient populations, they added.
The present study aimed to address these shortcomings by creating a second-trimester blood test for predicting sPTB. To identify relevant biomarkers, the investigators compared RNA profiles that were differentially expressed in three types of cases: term birth, early sPTB, and very early sPTB.
Among 242 women who contributed second-trimester blood samples for analysis, 194 went on to have a term birth. Of the remaining 48 women who gave birth spontaneously before 35 weeks’ gestation, 32 delivered between 25 and 35 weeks (early sPTB), while 16 delivered before 25 weeks’ gestation (very early sPTB). Slightly more than half of the patients were White, about one-third were Black, approximately 10% were Asian, and the remainder were of unknown race/ethnicity. Cases of preeclampsia were excluded.
The gene discovery and modeling process revealed 25 distinct genes that were significantly associated with early sPTB, offering a risk model with a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 72% (area under the curve, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.87). Very early sPTB was associated with a set of 39 genes, giving a model with a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 80% (area under the curve = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.87).
Characterization of the two RNA profiles offered a glimpse into the underlying biological processes driving preterm birth. The genes predicting early sPTB are largely responsible for extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling, which could, “in terms of mechanism, reflect ongoing processes associated with cervical shortening, a feature often detected some weeks prior to sPTB,” the investigators wrote. In contrast, genes associated with very early sPTB are linked with insulinlike growth factor transport, which drives fetal growth and placentation. These findings could lead to development of pathway-specific interventions, Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues suggested.
According to coauthor Michal A. Elovitz, MD, the Hilarie L. Morgan and Mitchell L. Morgan President’s Distinguished Professor in Women’s Health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief medical advisor at Mirvie, the proprietary RNA platform moves beyond “unreliable and at times biased clinical factors such as race, BMI, and maternal age” to offer a “precision-based approach to pregnancy health.”
Excluding traditional risk factors also “promises more equitable care than the use of broad sociodemographic factors that often result in bias,” she added, noting that this may help address the higher rate of pregnancy complications among Black patients.
When asked about the potential for false-positive results, considering reported specificity rates of 72%-80%, Dr. Elovitz suggested that such concerns among pregnant women are an “unfortunate misconception.”
“It is not reflective of what women want regarding knowledge about the health of their pregnancy,” she said in a written comment. “Rather than be left in the dark, women want to be prepared for what is to come in their pregnancy journey.”
In support of this statement, Dr. Elovitz cited a recent study involving women with preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. A questionnaire showed that women appreciated pregnancy risk models when making decisions, and reported that they would have greater peace of mind if such tests were available.
Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, California Preterm Birth Initiative, supported Dr. Elovitz’s viewpoint.
“If you talk to women who have delivered preterm most (but not all) say that they would have wanted to know their risk so they could have been better prepared,” she said in a written comment. “I think we need to shift the narrative to empowerment away from fear.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who holds a patent for a separate test predicting preterm birth, said that the Mirvie RNA platform is “promising,” although she expressed concern that excluding patients with preeclampsia – representing approximately 4% of pregnancies in the United States – may have clouded accuracy results.
“What is unclear is how the test would perform more generally when a sample of all pregnancies was included,” she said. “Without that information, it is hard to compare their findings with other predictive models without such exclusions.”
Regardless of the model used, Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski said that more research is needed to determine best clinical responses when risk of sPTB is increased.
“Ultimately we want to connect action with results,” she said. “Okay, so [a woman] is at high risk for delivering preterm – now what? There is a lot of untapped potential once you start to focus more with women and birthing people you know have a high likelihood of preterm birth.”
The study was supported by Mirvie, Tommy’s Charity, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Mirvie, including equity interest and/or intellectual property rights. Cohort contributors were remunerated for sample collection and/or shipping. Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski holds a patent for a different preterm birth prediction blood test.
*This story was updated on 4/26/2022.
A new blood test performed in the second trimester could help identify pregnancies at risk of early and very early spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB), based on a prospective cohort trial.
The cell-free RNA (cfRNA) profiling tool could guide patient and provider decision-making, while the underlying research illuminates biological pathways that may facilitate novel interventions, reported lead author Joan Camunas-Soler, PhD, of Mirvie, South San Francisco, and colleagues.
“Given the complex etiology of this heterogeneous syndrome, it would be advantageous to develop predictive tests that provide insight on the specific pathophysiology leading to preterm birth for each particular pregnancy,” Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Such an approach could inform the development of preventive treatments and targeted therapeutics that are currently lacking/difficult to implement due to the heterogeneous etiology of sPTB.”
Currently, the best predictor of sPTB is previous sPTB, according to the investigators. Although a combination approach that incorporates cervical length and fetal fibronectin in cervicovaginal fluid is “of use,” they noted, “this is not standard of care in the U.S.A. nor recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.” Existing molecular tests lack clinical data and may be inaccurate across diverse patient populations, they added.
The present study aimed to address these shortcomings by creating a second-trimester blood test for predicting sPTB. To identify relevant biomarkers, the investigators compared RNA profiles that were differentially expressed in three types of cases: term birth, early sPTB, and very early sPTB.
Among 242 women who contributed second-trimester blood samples for analysis, 194 went on to have a term birth. Of the remaining 48 women who gave birth spontaneously before 35 weeks’ gestation, 32 delivered between 25 and 35 weeks (early sPTB), while 16 delivered before 25 weeks’ gestation (very early sPTB). Slightly more than half of the patients were White, about one-third were Black, approximately 10% were Asian, and the remainder were of unknown race/ethnicity. Cases of preeclampsia were excluded.
The gene discovery and modeling process revealed 25 distinct genes that were significantly associated with early sPTB, offering a risk model with a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 72% (area under the curve, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.87). Very early sPTB was associated with a set of 39 genes, giving a model with a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 80% (area under the curve = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.87).
Characterization of the two RNA profiles offered a glimpse into the underlying biological processes driving preterm birth. The genes predicting early sPTB are largely responsible for extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling, which could, “in terms of mechanism, reflect ongoing processes associated with cervical shortening, a feature often detected some weeks prior to sPTB,” the investigators wrote. In contrast, genes associated with very early sPTB are linked with insulinlike growth factor transport, which drives fetal growth and placentation. These findings could lead to development of pathway-specific interventions, Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues suggested.
According to coauthor Michal A. Elovitz, MD, the Hilarie L. Morgan and Mitchell L. Morgan President’s Distinguished Professor in Women’s Health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief medical advisor at Mirvie, the proprietary RNA platform moves beyond “unreliable and at times biased clinical factors such as race, BMI, and maternal age” to offer a “precision-based approach to pregnancy health.”
Excluding traditional risk factors also “promises more equitable care than the use of broad sociodemographic factors that often result in bias,” she added, noting that this may help address the higher rate of pregnancy complications among Black patients.
When asked about the potential for false-positive results, considering reported specificity rates of 72%-80%, Dr. Elovitz suggested that such concerns among pregnant women are an “unfortunate misconception.”
“It is not reflective of what women want regarding knowledge about the health of their pregnancy,” she said in a written comment. “Rather than be left in the dark, women want to be prepared for what is to come in their pregnancy journey.”
In support of this statement, Dr. Elovitz cited a recent study involving women with preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. A questionnaire showed that women appreciated pregnancy risk models when making decisions, and reported that they would have greater peace of mind if such tests were available.
Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, California Preterm Birth Initiative, supported Dr. Elovitz’s viewpoint.
“If you talk to women who have delivered preterm most (but not all) say that they would have wanted to know their risk so they could have been better prepared,” she said in a written comment. “I think we need to shift the narrative to empowerment away from fear.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who holds a patent for a separate test predicting preterm birth, said that the Mirvie RNA platform is “promising,” although she expressed concern that excluding patients with preeclampsia – representing approximately 4% of pregnancies in the United States – may have clouded accuracy results.
“What is unclear is how the test would perform more generally when a sample of all pregnancies was included,” she said. “Without that information, it is hard to compare their findings with other predictive models without such exclusions.”
Regardless of the model used, Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski said that more research is needed to determine best clinical responses when risk of sPTB is increased.
“Ultimately we want to connect action with results,” she said. “Okay, so [a woman] is at high risk for delivering preterm – now what? There is a lot of untapped potential once you start to focus more with women and birthing people you know have a high likelihood of preterm birth.”
The study was supported by Mirvie, Tommy’s Charity, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Mirvie, including equity interest and/or intellectual property rights. Cohort contributors were remunerated for sample collection and/or shipping. Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski holds a patent for a different preterm birth prediction blood test.
*This story was updated on 4/26/2022.
A new blood test performed in the second trimester could help identify pregnancies at risk of early and very early spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB), based on a prospective cohort trial.
The cell-free RNA (cfRNA) profiling tool could guide patient and provider decision-making, while the underlying research illuminates biological pathways that may facilitate novel interventions, reported lead author Joan Camunas-Soler, PhD, of Mirvie, South San Francisco, and colleagues.
“Given the complex etiology of this heterogeneous syndrome, it would be advantageous to develop predictive tests that provide insight on the specific pathophysiology leading to preterm birth for each particular pregnancy,” Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Such an approach could inform the development of preventive treatments and targeted therapeutics that are currently lacking/difficult to implement due to the heterogeneous etiology of sPTB.”
Currently, the best predictor of sPTB is previous sPTB, according to the investigators. Although a combination approach that incorporates cervical length and fetal fibronectin in cervicovaginal fluid is “of use,” they noted, “this is not standard of care in the U.S.A. nor recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.” Existing molecular tests lack clinical data and may be inaccurate across diverse patient populations, they added.
The present study aimed to address these shortcomings by creating a second-trimester blood test for predicting sPTB. To identify relevant biomarkers, the investigators compared RNA profiles that were differentially expressed in three types of cases: term birth, early sPTB, and very early sPTB.
Among 242 women who contributed second-trimester blood samples for analysis, 194 went on to have a term birth. Of the remaining 48 women who gave birth spontaneously before 35 weeks’ gestation, 32 delivered between 25 and 35 weeks (early sPTB), while 16 delivered before 25 weeks’ gestation (very early sPTB). Slightly more than half of the patients were White, about one-third were Black, approximately 10% were Asian, and the remainder were of unknown race/ethnicity. Cases of preeclampsia were excluded.
The gene discovery and modeling process revealed 25 distinct genes that were significantly associated with early sPTB, offering a risk model with a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 72% (area under the curve, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.87). Very early sPTB was associated with a set of 39 genes, giving a model with a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 80% (area under the curve = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.87).
Characterization of the two RNA profiles offered a glimpse into the underlying biological processes driving preterm birth. The genes predicting early sPTB are largely responsible for extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling, which could, “in terms of mechanism, reflect ongoing processes associated with cervical shortening, a feature often detected some weeks prior to sPTB,” the investigators wrote. In contrast, genes associated with very early sPTB are linked with insulinlike growth factor transport, which drives fetal growth and placentation. These findings could lead to development of pathway-specific interventions, Dr. Camunas-Soler and colleagues suggested.
According to coauthor Michal A. Elovitz, MD, the Hilarie L. Morgan and Mitchell L. Morgan President’s Distinguished Professor in Women’s Health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief medical advisor at Mirvie, the proprietary RNA platform moves beyond “unreliable and at times biased clinical factors such as race, BMI, and maternal age” to offer a “precision-based approach to pregnancy health.”
Excluding traditional risk factors also “promises more equitable care than the use of broad sociodemographic factors that often result in bias,” she added, noting that this may help address the higher rate of pregnancy complications among Black patients.
When asked about the potential for false-positive results, considering reported specificity rates of 72%-80%, Dr. Elovitz suggested that such concerns among pregnant women are an “unfortunate misconception.”
“It is not reflective of what women want regarding knowledge about the health of their pregnancy,” she said in a written comment. “Rather than be left in the dark, women want to be prepared for what is to come in their pregnancy journey.”
In support of this statement, Dr. Elovitz cited a recent study involving women with preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. A questionnaire showed that women appreciated pregnancy risk models when making decisions, and reported that they would have greater peace of mind if such tests were available.
Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, California Preterm Birth Initiative, supported Dr. Elovitz’s viewpoint.
“If you talk to women who have delivered preterm most (but not all) say that they would have wanted to know their risk so they could have been better prepared,” she said in a written comment. “I think we need to shift the narrative to empowerment away from fear.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who holds a patent for a separate test predicting preterm birth, said that the Mirvie RNA platform is “promising,” although she expressed concern that excluding patients with preeclampsia – representing approximately 4% of pregnancies in the United States – may have clouded accuracy results.
“What is unclear is how the test would perform more generally when a sample of all pregnancies was included,” she said. “Without that information, it is hard to compare their findings with other predictive models without such exclusions.”
Regardless of the model used, Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski said that more research is needed to determine best clinical responses when risk of sPTB is increased.
“Ultimately we want to connect action with results,” she said. “Okay, so [a woman] is at high risk for delivering preterm – now what? There is a lot of untapped potential once you start to focus more with women and birthing people you know have a high likelihood of preterm birth.”
The study was supported by Mirvie, Tommy’s Charity, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Mirvie, including equity interest and/or intellectual property rights. Cohort contributors were remunerated for sample collection and/or shipping. Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski holds a patent for a different preterm birth prediction blood test.
*This story was updated on 4/26/2022.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Deep brain stimulation fails to halt depression in Parkinson’s disease
Treatment with deep brain stimulation improved motor function and quality of life, but depression scores increased after 1 year, based on data from 20 adults.
Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) has emerged as an effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease symptoms, with evidence supporting improved motor symptoms and quality of life, wrote Francesca Mameli, PsyD, of Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and colleagues.
However, the effect of STN-DBS on personality in Parkinson’s disease (PD) has not been well investigated they said.
In a study published in Neuromodulation, the researchers reviewed data from 12 women and 8 men with PD who underwent bilateral STN-DBS.
Depression was assessed via the Montgomery-Asberg Depressive Rating Scale (MADRS), personality characteristics were assessed via the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2), and motor disabilities were assessed via UPDRS-III-Motor. The motor disabilities score was obtained in medication on and medication off conditions; the off condition followed a 12-hour overnight withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. Quality of life was assessed via the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire–8 (PDQ-8).
After 12 months, scores on the MMPI-2 were significantly higher on the D subscale, increased from a baseline mean of 56.05 to a 12-month mean of 61.90 (P = .015).
Other MMPI-2 scales showing significant increases included the DEP scale, LSE scale, WRK scale, and TRT scale. No differences appeared between male and female patients.
No significant changes occurred from pre-DBS baseline to the 12-month follow-up in MADRS scale assessment, with mean scores of 8.18 and 9.22, respectively.
A 40% improvement in UPDRS measures of motor function occurred among patients in the “medication-off” condition, although there was no significant change following DBS in the medication-on condition, the researchers said. Among 18 patients with PDQ-8 assessments, quality of life scores were significantly higher at 12 months’ post DBS compared to baseline pre DBS (40.15 vs. 30.73, P = .011).
The researchers also examined the relationship between the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) and the occurrence of personality trait shift. In the TEED analysis, “only the energy on the right side was inversely correlated with the changes in depression,” they wrote.
“Because of the complexity of psychiatric phenomena, it would be advisable to take a cautious approach by including psychiatric evaluation by interview for a better selection of patients who score close to the pathological cutoffs in MADRS and MMPI-2,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, lack of data on the prevalence and severity of apathy, the use of scales based on self-reports, and inability to control for all factors that might affect depressive traits, the researchers noted. In addition, more research is needed to explore the correlation between TEED and personality trait changes, they said.
However, the results support the value of DBS in PD, but emphasize the need to manage expectations, they emphasized. “Expectations should never be unrealistic, and the caring team should ensure not only that patients fully understand the risks and potential benefits of the DBS but also that it will not stop the neurodegenerative progression of the disease,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Treatment with deep brain stimulation improved motor function and quality of life, but depression scores increased after 1 year, based on data from 20 adults.
Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) has emerged as an effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease symptoms, with evidence supporting improved motor symptoms and quality of life, wrote Francesca Mameli, PsyD, of Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and colleagues.
However, the effect of STN-DBS on personality in Parkinson’s disease (PD) has not been well investigated they said.
In a study published in Neuromodulation, the researchers reviewed data from 12 women and 8 men with PD who underwent bilateral STN-DBS.
Depression was assessed via the Montgomery-Asberg Depressive Rating Scale (MADRS), personality characteristics were assessed via the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2), and motor disabilities were assessed via UPDRS-III-Motor. The motor disabilities score was obtained in medication on and medication off conditions; the off condition followed a 12-hour overnight withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. Quality of life was assessed via the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire–8 (PDQ-8).
After 12 months, scores on the MMPI-2 were significantly higher on the D subscale, increased from a baseline mean of 56.05 to a 12-month mean of 61.90 (P = .015).
Other MMPI-2 scales showing significant increases included the DEP scale, LSE scale, WRK scale, and TRT scale. No differences appeared between male and female patients.
No significant changes occurred from pre-DBS baseline to the 12-month follow-up in MADRS scale assessment, with mean scores of 8.18 and 9.22, respectively.
A 40% improvement in UPDRS measures of motor function occurred among patients in the “medication-off” condition, although there was no significant change following DBS in the medication-on condition, the researchers said. Among 18 patients with PDQ-8 assessments, quality of life scores were significantly higher at 12 months’ post DBS compared to baseline pre DBS (40.15 vs. 30.73, P = .011).
The researchers also examined the relationship between the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) and the occurrence of personality trait shift. In the TEED analysis, “only the energy on the right side was inversely correlated with the changes in depression,” they wrote.
“Because of the complexity of psychiatric phenomena, it would be advisable to take a cautious approach by including psychiatric evaluation by interview for a better selection of patients who score close to the pathological cutoffs in MADRS and MMPI-2,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, lack of data on the prevalence and severity of apathy, the use of scales based on self-reports, and inability to control for all factors that might affect depressive traits, the researchers noted. In addition, more research is needed to explore the correlation between TEED and personality trait changes, they said.
However, the results support the value of DBS in PD, but emphasize the need to manage expectations, they emphasized. “Expectations should never be unrealistic, and the caring team should ensure not only that patients fully understand the risks and potential benefits of the DBS but also that it will not stop the neurodegenerative progression of the disease,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Treatment with deep brain stimulation improved motor function and quality of life, but depression scores increased after 1 year, based on data from 20 adults.
Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) has emerged as an effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease symptoms, with evidence supporting improved motor symptoms and quality of life, wrote Francesca Mameli, PsyD, of Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and colleagues.
However, the effect of STN-DBS on personality in Parkinson’s disease (PD) has not been well investigated they said.
In a study published in Neuromodulation, the researchers reviewed data from 12 women and 8 men with PD who underwent bilateral STN-DBS.
Depression was assessed via the Montgomery-Asberg Depressive Rating Scale (MADRS), personality characteristics were assessed via the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2), and motor disabilities were assessed via UPDRS-III-Motor. The motor disabilities score was obtained in medication on and medication off conditions; the off condition followed a 12-hour overnight withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. Quality of life was assessed via the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire–8 (PDQ-8).
After 12 months, scores on the MMPI-2 were significantly higher on the D subscale, increased from a baseline mean of 56.05 to a 12-month mean of 61.90 (P = .015).
Other MMPI-2 scales showing significant increases included the DEP scale, LSE scale, WRK scale, and TRT scale. No differences appeared between male and female patients.
No significant changes occurred from pre-DBS baseline to the 12-month follow-up in MADRS scale assessment, with mean scores of 8.18 and 9.22, respectively.
A 40% improvement in UPDRS measures of motor function occurred among patients in the “medication-off” condition, although there was no significant change following DBS in the medication-on condition, the researchers said. Among 18 patients with PDQ-8 assessments, quality of life scores were significantly higher at 12 months’ post DBS compared to baseline pre DBS (40.15 vs. 30.73, P = .011).
The researchers also examined the relationship between the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) and the occurrence of personality trait shift. In the TEED analysis, “only the energy on the right side was inversely correlated with the changes in depression,” they wrote.
“Because of the complexity of psychiatric phenomena, it would be advisable to take a cautious approach by including psychiatric evaluation by interview for a better selection of patients who score close to the pathological cutoffs in MADRS and MMPI-2,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, lack of data on the prevalence and severity of apathy, the use of scales based on self-reports, and inability to control for all factors that might affect depressive traits, the researchers noted. In addition, more research is needed to explore the correlation between TEED and personality trait changes, they said.
However, the results support the value of DBS in PD, but emphasize the need to manage expectations, they emphasized. “Expectations should never be unrealistic, and the caring team should ensure not only that patients fully understand the risks and potential benefits of the DBS but also that it will not stop the neurodegenerative progression of the disease,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM NEUROMODULATION
Pandemic prompts spike in eating disorder hospitalization for adolescents
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
FROM PAS 2022